Essential Research: 53-47 to Labor

A better result for the Coalition from Essential Research this week brings the pollster back into line with the 53-47 consensus.

As I should have reported yesterday, this week’s reading of the Essential Research fortnight rolling average has ticked in favour of the Coalition, who gain a point on the primary vote at the expense of Labor to lead 38% to 36%, with Labor’s two-party lead down from 54-46 to 53-47, as the Greens rise a point to 11% and One Nation falls one to 5%. Most of the supplementary questions this week are less clearly framed than they might be, but a question on the Trans-Pacific Partnership suggests respondents are less inclined to think it stacked in favour of big business than they were when the United States was on board. Another question repeats an exercise from October last year in gauging opinion on major policy decisions of recent decades, finding overwhelming support for compulsory superannuation and Medicare, pluralities in favour of the GST, free trade agreements, floating of the dollar and reducing car manufacturing subsidies, and better-than-usual responses to privatisation, breaking in favour of Qantas and against Telstra and the Commonwealth Bank.

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

884 comments on “Essential Research: 53-47 to Labor”

Comments Page 12 of 18
1 11 12 13 18
  1. Toorak Toff @ #538 Friday, June 2nd, 2017 – 11:44 am

    Trump’s downfall has been predicted many times, but he’s still there and it’s doubtful anything can shift him.
    As for the UK election, YouGov essentially says: “We haven’t a clue. It will be somewhere between a hung parliament and a Tory landslide.”

    It seems the outcome depends on who turns up to vote.

  2. trog sorrenson @ #533 Friday, June 2, 2017 at 11:25 am

    With all the reams of bullshit you spout about gas, you have never adequately explained this statement without diversion into some irrelevancy:

    gas reduces C02 emissions by eliminating coal faster than renewables can

    How the fuck does this make sense? Just focus on this one statement of yours, and give a simple, clear explanation of why it is true. It doesn’t require reference to reports, just a simple, clear explanation in your own words.

    It’s clear you haven’t read Finkel’s preliminary report, or indeed any modelling on how an EIS would work in practice. If you did, you would be able to answer your own question.

    But I’m not trying to duck your question – here’s just one tiny idea … We currently have about twice the gas generation capability than we use (see links posted earlier today). If we even just used all the gas generating capacity we currently have (yes, I know this has technical difficulties, and we probably couldn’t use it all) we could retire an equivalent amount of coal generation, reducing C02 emissions by around 5% … pretty much overnight.

    And the thing about this is – it doesn’t really matter how much renewables can or can’t do or when they can or can’t do it – this one idea gives us an additional 5% C02 emissions reduction over whatever renewables do. And more importantly, it gets it right now, and it keeps it up until renewables can finally take over – i.e. around 2050 (according to the AEMO/CSIRO modelling).

    This represents gigatonnes of of C02 that we need not emit. Don’t you care about that at all?

  3. Dozens Of U.S. Mayors Defy Trump And Promise To Commit To The Paris Climate Agreement

    Leaders from across the country are proving that one man without any grasp of reality – even if he’s the president – will not hijack the global effort to tackle this growing threat.

    Even though Donald Trump announced he would pull the United States out of the landmark Paris climate accord, at least 68 mayors across the country pledged to defy the president and commit to the agreement.

    In a powerful statement, the group of city leaders wrote, “We will intensify efforts to meet each of our cities’ current climate goals, push for new action to meet the 1.5 degrees Celsius target, and work together to create a 21st century clean energy economy.”

    Trump may continue to live in a fantasy world in which climate change is a Chinese hoax and coal jobs will come roaring back, but the rest of the country is showing that they will not sit on the sidelines. Instead, they will find new ways of making a difference and advancing this effort where it matters – on a local level.

    As the group of mayors said on Thursday: “The world cannot wait.”

    http://www.politicususa.com/2017/06/01/dozens-u-s-mayors-defy-trump-promise-commit-paris-climate-agreement.html

  4. c@tmomma @ #540 Friday, June 2, 2017 at 11:48 am

    I was wondering when some smarty pants would try and harness the wind power of the Roaring Forties, especially in Bass Strait.
    You’d think the Tories who sail in the Sydney-Hobart would have done some ‘agile’ and ‘innovative’ thinking as they sailed down the East Coast to Constitution Dock and seen the $$$ in getting on board the Renewable Energy train as the train left the station.

    While winds at sea are normally stronger and a more consistent, less friction and barriers than land, a major problem for any equipment placed there is, it is a very hostile environment, especially for metals.

    This is something the Tories with yachts would understand very well as it impacts directly on the maintenance costs of those toys.

    That is why south west facing coastlines are favoured sites in southern Australia, you minimise both the effect of land and the salt environment.

    I’m not saying you should not do it but it is a major negative in any ocean environment proposal and would certainly add to the start up and maintenance costs.

  5. GG
    “Trump’s in big trouble now. He’s made Mickey Mouse cross.”

    Mickey Mouse was already cross. He was insulted that Trump has been called a ‘Mickey Mouse President’.

  6. It seems the outcome depends on who turns up to vote.
    Yep. There’s probably enough support for even a majority Labour win out there. There probably won’t be enough of them to turn up to make it happen though. How many finally show up (and how many Tories stay home) will determine where it ends up on the spectrum of Tory Landslide to minority government.

  7. @ P1 – where will the gas for that plan come? We already are having shortages. Doubling the gas used for electricity would work for a few weeks, then stored gas would exhaust and we would have blackouts.

    Also, how are you planning on convincing gas generators to bid in at prices below that of coal generators? The short run marginal cost of gas generators is higher than that of coal. Even with an EIS, that will likely remain true for most gas and most coal generators.

    That’s the problem with everything you say. You assume that someone can simply control who does what. That is not how the NEM works. You can’t just abandon the concept of a market and force gas generators to run 100% of the time.

  8. barney in go dau @ #555 Friday, June 2, 2017 at 12:17 pm

    While winds at sea are normally stronger and a more consistent, less friction and barriers than land, a major problem for any equipment placed there is, it is a very hostile environment, especially for metals.

    This is (amongst other things) why you have to be careful about whether you are talking onshore or offshore wind generation. Onshore is cheap. Offshore is expensive!

  9. voice endeavour @ #559 Friday, June 2, 2017 at 12:21 pm

    @ P1 – where will the gas for that plan come? We already are having shortages. Doubling the gas used for electricity would work for a few weeks, then stored gas would exhaust and we would have blackouts.
    Also, how are you planning on convincing gas generators to bid in at prices below that of coal generators? The short run marginal cost of gas generators is higher than that of coal. Even with an EIS, that will likely remain true for most gas and most coal generators.
    That’s the problem with everything you say. You assume that someone can simply control who does what. That is not how the NEM works. You can’t just abandon the concept of a market and force gas generators to run 100% of the time.

    An EIS and a gas reservation policy solves all these issues.

  10. There are plenty of near-shore sites that have consistent wind and don’t face quite the same engineering challenges that offshore wind does.

  11. P1
    Again, you haven’t answered the question, but resorted to a report.
    I have consistently maintained that is cheaper and quicker to roll out renewables rather than new gas fired generation, but you don’t agree with this. I am asking you why this is the case.

  12. Just to prove that the Palacsjuk Queensland government isn’t all about Coal Mining:

    Mark Bailey MP‏Verified account @MarkBaileyMP 1m1 minute ago
    North Qld Clean Energy Hub for renewables boom with $386m by Palaszczuk Govt to solar, wind & hydro transmission line & Burdekin hydro pic.twitter.com/E391XfQcoM

  13. An EIS and a gas reservation policy solves all these issues.

    In a market where both solar and battery prices continue to fall and where the EIS more strongly favours solar than gas.

    Sure, P1. Pull the other one. Its got bells.

  14. I have consistently maintained that is cheaper and quicker to roll out renewables rather than new gas fired generation, but you don’t agree with this. I am asking you why this is the case.

    Give up Trog. P1 just will not be challenged over his/her/its most basic assumption. Its an article of faith that solar/battery is too expensive and always will be. Groundhog dog rules.

  15. Player One @ #562 Friday, June 2nd, 2017 – 12:25 pm

    voice endeavour @ #559 Friday, June 2, 2017 at 12:21 pm

    @ P1 – where will the gas for that plan come? We already are having shortages. Doubling the gas used for electricity would work for a few weeks, then stored gas would exhaust and we would have blackouts.
    Also, how are you planning on convincing gas generators to bid in at prices below that of coal generators? The short run marginal cost of gas generators is higher than that of coal. Even with an EIS, that will likely remain true for most gas and most coal generators.
    That’s the problem with everything you say. You assume that someone can simply control who does what. That is not how the NEM works. You can’t just abandon the concept of a market and force gas generators to run 100% of the time.

    An EIS and a gas reservation policy solves all these issues.

    P1,

    I admire the ease which you have all your opponents frothing and spluttering while you sail serenely on.
    Carry on!

  16. player one @ #561 Friday, June 2, 2017 at 12:24 pm

    barney in go dau @ #555 Friday, June 2, 2017 at 12:17 pm

    While winds at sea are normally stronger and a more consistent, less friction and barriers than land, a major problem for any equipment placed there is, it is a very hostile environment, especially for metals.

    This is (amongst other things) why you have to be careful about whether you are talking onshore or offshore wind generation. Onshore is cheap. Offshore is expensive!

    Your last sentence should read;

    Offshore is more expensive!

  17. cud chewer @ #568 Friday, June 2, 2017 at 12:31 pm

    I have consistently maintained that is cheaper and quicker to roll out renewables rather than new gas fired generation, but you don’t agree with this. I am asking you why this is the case.

    Give up Trog. P1 just will not be challenged over his/her/its most basic assumption. Its an article of faith that solar/battery is too expensive and always will be. Groundhog dog rules.

    P1’s belief is based on faith. Like any fundamentalist belief, it is unchallengable.

  18. trog sorrenson @ #564 Friday, June 2, 2017 at 12:28 pm

    P1
    Again, you haven’t answered the question, but resorted to a report.
    I have consistently maintained that is cheaper and quicker to roll out renewables rather than new gas fired generation, but you don’t agree with this. I am asking you why this is the case.

    I gave you an answer. I cannot be held responsible for your failure to understand it. If you are not going to read reports written by experts in the subject, you are really not going to understand much at all.

  19. Barry is bemoaning the standard of political debate in this country.

    “Sometimes — well, often really — the way the public debate is conducted in this country is so frustrating.

    Just consider what has happened since the Uluru statement.”

    Of course those who report and pontificate on politics have effect on the standard of political debate.
    Even though they are self professed insiders, they really can’t be held responsible in any way.

  20. Locally with all this reporting from rest of world on Climate Change may force our journos to seriosly talk about climate policy.

    This is bad news For Turnbull’s mob.

  21. cud chewer @ #568 Friday, June 2, 2017 at 12:31 pm

    I have consistently maintained that is cheaper and quicker to roll out renewables rather than new gas fired generation, but you don’t agree with this. I am asking you why this is the case.

    Give up Trog. P1 just will not be challenged over his/her/its most basic assumption. Its an article of faith that solar/battery is too expensive and always will be. Groundhog dog rules.

    Nice strawman, CC. Point me to anywhere I have said any such thing.

  22. “After the UK election we may well see a new prime minister – Boris Johnson”.
    I’m getting my money on now – the perfect trifecta: Boris in London, Donald in Washington and Tony in Canberra by July 1.

  23. “Locally with all this reporting from rest of world on Climate Change may force our journos to seriosly talk about climate policy.”

    I like your optimism, if not your spelling.

  24. guytaur @ #578 Friday, June 2, 2017 at 12:39 pm

    Locally with all this reporting from rest of world on Climate Change may force our journos to seriosly talk about climate policy.

    I just wish it would have the same effect here on PB, instead of the subject being largely monopolized by the solar warriors of the loony left!

  25. An EIS will not drive the SRMC of coal below that of gas.

    A gas reservation policy solves nothing (climate related). It means more gas for Australia and less gas for someone else. We share the same air as that someone else, so no benefit. It is an economic policy, not related to emissions reductions.

  26. cud chewer @ #566 Friday, June 2, 2017 at 12:28 pm

    An EIS and a gas reservation policy solves all these issues.

    In a market where both solar and battery prices continue to fall and where the EIS more strongly favours solar than gas.
    Sure, P1. Pull the other one. Its got bells.

    Your opposition to an EIS indicates that you believe it will behave as Alan Finkel, Danny Price and I all predict. If you believed it would behave as you predict, why on earth would you be opposed?

  27. I think that IOPL and LKIV is likely to have a far higher impact on the price of LOG moving forward, but only if you factor in the supply side equation of WSLP as % of FRQW.

  28. voice endeavour @ #584 Friday, June 2, 2017 at 12:43 pm

    A gas reservation policy solves nothing (climate related). It means more gas for Australia and less gas for someone else.

    This has been discussed before. The problem with this argument is that not all our exported gas is used to replace coal electricity generation – some is used for heating, much is used as chemical feedstock. The more that is actually used to replace coal the better, and we can help with that.

  29. VE…emissions reduction is hardcore economic policy. There is no meaningful distinction between environmental policy and economic policy. Unless we protect the environment and remediate environmental disruption we will lose the economy.

  30. Briefly – I’d be surprised if a low-tax jurisdiction like Singapore goes on the hook for depositors, but I’m very ignorant in this area. Sounds like a huge bluff to me.

  31. “Maybe. But, you haven’t factored in the ABC bias!”

    Never forget ABC bias!
    That’s IOPL – Information Organ for Propaganda Leverage

  32. Its clear that investing in gas is a deflection. The faster we scale up renewables, the greater will be the reduction in emissions and the reduction in electricity prices. By investing in renewables, electricity production can incease while both the direct and indirect costs fall.

    To invest in gas is to push up opportunity costs and postpone the installation of the carbon-free economy.

  33. briefly @ #594 Friday, June 2, 2017 at 1:01 pm

    To invest in gas is to push up opportunity costs and postpone the installation of the carbon-free economy.

    However, it does have the upside that it reduces our overall C02 emissions. Of course, that doesn’t seem to matter to most people.

  34. Guytaur,

    The climate change deniers within the coalition are already out and about.

    It should not be underestimated the problems this Trump decision mean for Turnbull. The deniers and the anti Paris supporters within the government go well beyond the usual suspects. The do nothing group extends across the whole liberal and national parties. A big issue for Turnbull made even worse by the Finkle report timing.

    Cheers.

Comments Page 12 of 18
1 11 12 13 18

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *